We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
1–10 of 138 posts
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#2So secret courts free from alternative adversarial opinions are abused? Shocking!
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#3So secret courts free from alternative adversarial opinions are abused? Shocking!
If you're a believer in rights you shouldn't even play their game.
There shouldn't even be secret courts. Debating their integrity almost glosses over the real, more fundamental, problem.
Secret courts themselves, their very existence, are abuses. That's just my opinion, but I really do think you start down a dark path when you create this type of judicial organ.
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#4So secret courts free from alternative adversarial opinions are abused? Shocking!
Not only that, a secret court setup specifically for foreign surveillance was used to spy domestically.
It’s why you don’t give governments secret toys and extra judicial powers, the people that run it are worst than toddlers, and more abusive and dishonest.
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#5If the FBI can’t follow protocol for actions at the highest levels and engage in amateur tactics, just imagine how they conduct themselves with ordinary citizens.
Now, I was under the impression FISA courts has an aversion to allowing spying if there was a possibility of one of the targets being a US national.
Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, they didn’t get her on FTC violations, nope, they got her for “lying”. If she’s not guilty of a crime how the hell do you get people for “lying”.
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#6Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece? They used to know better: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/eff-nytimes-dont-get-f...
Edit: I was being extremely sarcastic. I was hoping linking to the EFF would be enough of a clue.
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#7If the FBI can’t follow protocol for actions at the highest levels and engage in amateur tactics, just imagine how they conduct themselves with ordinary citizens. Now, I was under the impression FISA courts has an aversion to allowing spying if there was a possibility of one of the targets being a US national. Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, t…
It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents.
Note that this is not the same as the "if you're honest, you have nothing to hide anyway" argument in favor of mass surveillance. This is about answering a specific set of questions from a member of law enforcement in the course of a specific investigation. You always have the right to decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment in that situation as well (another way to avoid telling a lie). Obviously that's not true under a regime of mass surveillance, which is one of the many reasons I think mass surveillance is a bad idea and unconstitutional.
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#8Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece? They used to know better: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/eff-nytimes-dont-get-f... Edit: I was being extremely sarcastic. I was hoping linking to the EFF would be enough of a clue.
Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem.
The USA political system fosters a short term focus on who gets to be king of the hill, at the expense of reforming this shit show.
We get it: orange man bad. But guess what? Orange man didn't create this system. That was done over decades. Orange man didn't start a needless war that cost trillions and the deaths of thousands of troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Obama, who I voted for twice, not counting my primary votes for him, kept us in Afghanistan, and didn't pardon Snowden, but did pardon Chelsea Manning.
I don't care if this helps orange man a little bit, because he will be gone in a few years, worst case scenario, a few months best case. But the smooth talking, non offensive marketing figurehead for the other party will hopefully not have so much power to abuse when they take office.
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#9If the FBI can’t follow protocol for actions at the highest levels and engage in amateur tactics, just imagine how they conduct themselves with ordinary citizens. Now, I was under the impression FISA courts has an aversion to allowing spying if there was a possibility of one of the targets being a US national. Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, t…
It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents. Note that this is not the same as the "if you're honest, you have nothing to hide anyway" argument in favor of mass surveillance. This is about answering a specific set of questions from a member of law enforcement in the course of a specific investigation. You always have the…
The US citizen in question was interrogated for more than 40 hours. I think its safe to say anybody will lie in that time frame intentionally or not.
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#10If the FBI can’t follow protocol for actions at the highest levels and engage in amateur tactics, just imagine how they conduct themselves with ordinary citizens. Now, I was under the impression FISA courts has an aversion to allowing spying if there was a possibility of one of the targets being a US national. Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, t…
It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents. Note that this is not the same as the "if you're honest, you have nothing to hide anyway" argument in favor of mass surveillance. This is about answering a specific set of questions from a member of law enforcement in the course of a specific investigation. You always have the…
It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation
I understand that that's how the system works today. I object to it.
1) It doesn't account for fallibility of human memory, and our propensity to make mistakes. I believe that it's easy to badger a person to the point where they're intellectually disoriented, and "lies" become likely even without the suspect have bad intentions.
2) The asymmetry is a problem. Law enforcement routinely lies to suspects. Why is it okay for them morally?
3) We're told that these laws are necessary to prevent obstruction of justice, but it appears that these charges are frequently (maybe usually) when there was no obstruction at all: the police knew exactly what the truth was. They were setting a trap for the suspect, trying to get them to incriminate themselves in a different way.
Caveat: I didn't RTFA, since it's paywalled.